JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - Ram Dularey was recorded tenure-holder of certain plots. During the Consolidation operations Dargahi Lal and Gaya Prasad petitioners filed objection claiming Sirdari rights on the ground of their adverse possession over these plots. The Consolidation Officer upheld the claim of the petitioners in respect of certain plots but rejected their claim in respect of plot No. 1034/3. The Petitioners as well as Ram Dularey both filed appeals before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Petitioner's appeal was dismissed while the appeal filed by Ram Dularey was allowed by the Settlement Officer by his order dated November 18, 1968. The Petitioners thereupon filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. That revision was also dismissed by the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated August 7, 1969. Aggrieved the Petitioners approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the aforesaid orders. 2. The petitioners claimed Sirdari rights on the basis of adverse possession, in support of their claims they placed reliance on the entries of possession made in the Khasra. The Settlement Officer Consolidation discarded the entries of possession made in favour of the petitioners with the remark that P.A. 10 entry had not been made in accordance with law. The petitioners challenged the correctness of that finding before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. They had asserted that the entry had not been made in accordance with law and in order to support their contention they made an application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation for summoning of the original documents including the diary maintained by the Lekhpal. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed their application and passed an order on August 7, 1969, directing the Lekhpal to produce the documents including Lekhpal's diary before him on August 13, 1969. A copy of the order has been filed as annexure 6 to the writ petition. The petitioners were required to pay Rs. 15/- as costs to the respondent. It appears that the cost was paid immediately as has been mentioned in the order itself. 3. Though the Deputy Director had directed the Lekhpal to produce the documents on August 13, 1969 yet the impugned order shows that the revision of the petitioners was decided on August 7, 3969 on merits without awaiting for the production of the documents as directed by him. 3. Though the Deputy Director had directed the Lekhpal to produce the documents on August 13, 1969 yet the impugned order shows that the revision of the petitioners was decided on August 7, 3969 on merits without awaiting for the production of the documents as directed by him. The petitioners have categorically stated that they were not heard by the Deputy Director on merits and the impugned order dated August 7, 1969 was passed without hearing them. They have further asserted that the case had been adjourned for August 13, 1969 for the production of the documents, thereafter the petitioners along with their counsel went away, hoping that the case would be taken up on August 13, 1969 but when they appeared before the Deputy Director on August 13, 1969, they were surprised to find that the case had already been decided on August 7, 1969. These averments have not been denied by the respondent No. 5 Ram Dularey has, however, referred to some practise that sometimes if one Deputy Director falls short of cases he calls for other cases from the other courts and decides the same. Be that as it may the fact remains that respondent No. 5 has not averred that the petitioners or their counsel were heard. There is thus no material before me to discard the petitioner's statement that they were not given any opportunity or hearing and that their case was decided behind their back. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to the observation made by the Deputy Director in the impugned order to the effect that counsel for the parties were heard. It is true that there is such an observation in the order of the Deputy Director but the petitioner has challenged the correctness of that observation on oath before this court. Neither the respondent No. 5 nor the Deputy Director have controverted the petitioner's allegation. Moreover, having regard to the order of Deputy Director dated August 7, 1969 fixing August 13, 1969, for production of the documents, no reliance can be placed on the observation of the order of the Deputy Director the parties were heard. Once, the case was adjourned to August 13, 1969 for production of the documents, the Deputy Director could not hear or decide the revision unless he had superseded that order and heard both the parties. Once, the case was adjourned to August 13, 1969 for production of the documents, the Deputy Director could not hear or decide the revision unless he had superseded that order and heard both the parties. I am satisfied that the Deputy Director decided the petitioner's revision without affording him any opportunity of hearing, the impugned order therefore cannot be sustained in law. 5. In the result the petition is allowed and the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated August 7, 1969 is quashed. The Deputy Director is directed to hear the petitioner's revision afresh in accordance with law. The petitioners are entitled to their costs.